Not the team I would have picked, thought that Wiggy might be more suited to starting this one. I probably would have put Simmonds in at 7 with Robshaw back at 6. Excellent seeing Mako at VC, hear he’s been very vocal behind the scenes, but what are the chances of him being on the pitch longer than Faz, unless there’s a injury?

The back row still looks the area that could be improved the most in my view. Personally I would love to see Armand, Simmonds and Billy at 6, 7 & 8. A great combination of power and pace.
At club level playing Lawes and Itoje at 6 is workable but at international level it always seems a bit makeshift to me.

At last the back three long awaited; just hope they deliver now!

BTW England have to match or better Ireland's result against Scotland this weekend or we cannot win the 6N.

GazzaFezThe back row still looks the area that could be improved the most in my view. Personally I would love to see Armand, Simmonds and Billy at 6, 7 & 8.

At last the back three long awaited; just hope they deliver now!

I think many of us would agree with your back row. Jones has approached Rhodes and there is a suggestion he's also keen on Shields. I wonder whether this is why he's reluctant to try Armand.

I still think Watson is better on the wing. Positionally, kicking, under the high ball and making last ditch tackles I think Brown is better, though Watson is clearly a greater running and passing threat. We can all be guilty of seeing our favourite's strengths and our least favourite's failings. Will Watson's attacking strength outweigh Brown's defensive courage?

Some of this gives an impression that EJ has realised that his squad is nothing like as settled as it should be so far into his tenure as the man to take England to RWC.

> Leadership. That should not be remotely a key issue after more than 25 matches in charge. We all saw the failure of leadership when Italy so clearly out-thought England last year, and again when Scotland did their number a fortnight ago. The lack of on-field leadership was painfully obvious.

> Playing style. When Plan A isn't working, what's Plan B, and behind that Plans C and D? EJ seems to pick sides to play different styles, but in reality each team has one style and one plan, with no ability to adapt to what happens in front of them.

> Key units. As Serge Betsen said yesterday, the England back row is simply an invitation to be turned over. Second row players may be great rugby players, but there's a reason why players standing 2 metres tall don't win turnovers: they're the wrong shape for the modern ruck game. Shorter, lower centre of gravity, and most importantly, doing it game after game, and not just when internationals come around and the coach can't decide whom of the available locks to leave out, they're all part of what makes a good back row, like Scotland's.

> Back three. Does EJ actually know his preferred back three? How many combinations has he tried so far? The only constant has been Mike Brown, and he's one of the least able to change style as conditions dictate. He's great at what he does, but it's a one-trick pony.

> Centres. Is England rugby's cupboard really so bare that EJ has to play a 10 at 12? And what doe he want of the centres? Play-makers, line-breakers?

> Apprentices. What's that all about? At some stage the winning RWC coach settles on the players who will bring the experience of thirty to fifty caps to the squad. Offering the Press titillation like Marcus Smith is a distraction, not a serious attempt to win the bog one.

This could go on and on, but the point is that England are not as far down the road as they would be if they were clearly No. 2 in the world, pressing for top spot and looking to win RWC. They have won lots of games, but we all know that much of what they've achieved is simply not the result of playing like world champion contenders.

No go forward. Where were the line breaks at speed - except for when Sinckler came on? Where were the two pops and carries? Lots of side to side and not playing flat enough so they had to work really hard just to stand still. All singleton tackles - I don't get that. I know we miss Billy at Sarries as well as for England - but really, it cant be all about playing off him. Mike Brown still awful even for the last ten minutes when he was on. What was George Ford doing repeatedly against Bastareaud? Dan Cole looked absolutely finished. Maro looked tired to me.
You know what - they just looked knackered to me. I cant help feeling they are over training.
I did think Robshaw was immense. Love Elliot Daly. And agree - Jamie was better than Hartley.

BarnetSarrieNo go forward. Where were the line breaks at speed - except for when Sinckler came on? Where were the two pops and carries? Lots of side to side and not playing flat enough so they had to work really hard just to stand still. All singleton tackles - I don't get that. I know we miss Billy at Sarries as well as for England - but really, it cant be all about playing off him. Mike Brown still awful even for the last ten minutes when he was on. What was George Ford doing repeatedly against Bastareaud? Dan Cole looked absolutely finished. Maro looked tired to me.
You know what - they just looked knackered to me. I cant help feeling they are over training.
I did think Robshaw was immense. Love Elliot Daly. And agree - Jamie was better than Hartley.

You are always the voice of reason, BarnetSarrie, the first stop for an objective assessment. I just can't get excited about the international game anymore, sad to say.

We certainly defended well, and Faz kicked superbly. Hats off to Maggie Alphonsi for identifying in the telegraph this morning that Teo’s passing is weak, as demonstrated with his poor effort after he had made one of our few line breaks.
None of the forwards came out on top in their battles, apart from a few good lineout steals.

You have to question why Armand can’t get in that team. The back row is so one dimensional without Billy, Robshaw fights at almost every ruck, but it’s impossible for him with so little support. Personally would have had Simmonds, Armand, and Robshaw. Maro was better today, but still think him, and the other Lions (bar Faz), look very jaded.

Think Wiggy would have made a better starter for this game, but if I was Robson I’d wonder what more I had to do to get past Care when he performs like that. Think the finishing 10,12, 13 should have started.

Oh dear. England were F-ing shocking. No imagination, no go forward, no plan B against a great defence that has shown itself from the start of this 6N. Feel for Faz that his captaincy was shadowed by such a dismal performance. So statos - when did England last lose 3 on the bounce in the 6N/5N/Home intls?
Hard times and as Convex Hull wisely says, Intl rugby is getting tough to watch. I was at HQ for the Wales game and it was like a bloody library for periods.
Thank goodness for Saracens!

Actually I don't agree at all. He was not poor. The whole plan was poor naming no names at all - and though the start was good we are really missing big ball carriers with good handling skills. The lineout was actually pretty good. The scrum was not helped by a referee who doesnt seem to understand how France were behaving - I did think at least Brian Moore explained that very well this afternoon (but dont get me on the subject of that idiot GusPratt). There was no shortage of effort, but for goodness sake where were the running lines that we see at Sarries? If you spend all your effort getting back to gain line, you exhaust yourself. If that had been a Saracens team, they would have adapted (like the Borg). If you dont have individuals to break the line - you use a two pop or three pop to do it.
I know Watsons yellow was right in the letter of the law, but I thought Paul O'Connell had it right in his commentary.
Let's be honest here. We need to find some more big ball carriers with good handling skills.

Unfortunately I don't think Jamie had a good enough game to stop Jones returning Hartley to the start. Tbf I think he could be MotM with a hat-trick whilst trumpeting rule Britania and Jones would still play Hartley but that's another matter altogether.

Ultimately we lost a vital lineout through one of his throws and/or miscommunication with the jumpers and whilst his defence was exceptional he provided little going forward which is supposed to be one of his advantages over Hartley.

Don't get me wrong I love Jamie and he would have been my starting hooker for the past two seasons for England but he is not in the form he was even a season ago and today probably (rightly or wrongly) didn't do enough.

If Eddie can admit it, he's taken his team up a blind alley:
> The back row is nothing more than three good players who are selected because they try hard, but two of them are out of position and one is clearly not fit.
> The half-backs are a nine who is great as a finisher in broken play but inadequately skilled to run the game in the way that, from today's games, Ireland and France take for granted in their nines, and a 10 not good enough to be selected to play in attack except when fast ball is guaranteed, which is not a given when the back row is inadequate, and never good enough to be selected in defence.
> The best ten in the 6N is selected at 12, either to accommodate the inadequate incumbent or to hide the deficiencies of the other 12s on offer.
> 13 cannot pass at a standard that is a basic requirement of any professional player, let alone one whose ability to distribute to the back three is integral to the modern game.

> Leaders are simply not seen, and I suspect that none are encouraged by the Eddie / Hartley love-in. If ever Jones made a truly crass error it was in allowing Hartley to take part in the warm-up drills today. What message did that say about Farrell's roles, when Hartley has to be there to mind him? Why put your head above the parapet when there's nothing to be gained by doing so?

> I am now convinced that the mantra of 20% fitter has led to a squad of players who are so busy working hard that they cannot work smart. It was clear today that more than a few players are simply shot before they get onto the pitch.

> The old guard are looking increasingly like that: old.

I personally think that England look no better tonight than they did two years ago. Then, they were out-thought and out-played out of RWC, and tonight they are clearly on the back end of two games when they suffered exactly the same treatment. And if World Rugby are to be believed, we should be looking at having lost three games, not two, in this 6N.

England looked sluggish, no energy till the last few minutes when it dawned on them they might lose. Farrel kicked well but distribution was decidely average. Jamies too very average, Maro looked like he was trying compared to the Scotland game but to little end result.Best England players were Robshaw and Daley, lus Sinklet and a couple of the other subs. 16 pens given away is tragic. You will always lose doing that against a half decent team. France were nothing clever but clearly sharper than us. It looked overy likely at half time we would lose we were so bad. I thought it wasin fact a wose performance than last time v Scotland as France obviously a worse team. Looked rather like the performances 2-3 years ago. Ireland for the try bonus point next week ? Definitely if we play with so litte energy and lack of attacing skill. Very Depressing

Next weekend is a difficult one. If England win, the cracks will be papered over, with claims that there was a bad patch, now sorted. If England lose, EJ will have to accept that his own ideas have failed to deliver, and start to accept that he is not Yoda after all, more an average turn-around specialist with a CV that says he never delivers beyond four years. As RWC will be almost exactly four years after his appointment, England will be on the cusp of getting rid of him as it is taking place.

I worked in the City for 40 years and saw his sort running big organisations time and again. They look great for a short time, but their methods are essentially about fixing short-term problems, and they leave the heavy lifting of building something sustainable to others. These others then find that the fixer has left a bigger mess than when he arrived. Think Philip Green, or Sir Philip Green, Carillion and BHS, and you get the picture.

Difficult to admit, but I wonder whether a win for England on Saturday would be the best result for RWC hopes. Perhaps a loss, that forces EJ to start acting like a grown-up who admits he doesn't know everything, might help. It seems certain the at the very least, he urgently needs an attack coach. Somebody who understands the new breakdown laws would be a help as well: conceding exactly 20 turnovers at the breakdown in the last two matches is a sure recipe for losing.

Surely this is about adaptability? You cant go into any game with a single game plan, The best teams adapt during the match to what the opponents tactics are. If an element of the game isnt working, they play a different way. Saracens at our best do exactly that - we dont even wait until half time to change patterns of play.
England havent looked confident and flowing since Billy was injured. No-one is going forward, getting them beyond the gain line and providing the all important space and time for George Ford. We all know that he is ineffective when his forwards arent controlling games - it is hardly news. But we cant be a one man team. We really should have used this six nations to adapt to different playing styles which would have stood us in good stead for next year, but instead we have tried to use different players to do the same old thing. It hasnt worked.
The thing that angers me is the apparent state of the players. Why would you look forward to going back to a training camp where even before the game starts you are knackered? Beasting the boys isnt the answer. It never has been. I'm surprised knowing Gussie and Borthers that they have done that. If someone has been injured, you dont bring them straight back into a team no matter how important they are. They have to be fully fit - and match fit, by which I mean getting their heads back into the flow of the game, before you expose them to international rugby, surely?
There have been times when I have questioned Eddie's choices and methods right from the start of his tenure - but the answer has always been 'but look at our win record! - if it aint broke dont fix it'. The win record is not the be all and end all - you have to look at the individual games and ask whether we are learning and improving - I am afraid that the evidence is that we are not.

.....It seems certain the at the very least, he urgently needs an attack coach. Somebody who understands the new breakdown laws would be a help as well: conceding exactly 20 turnovers at the breakdown in the last two matches is a sure recipe for losing.

This is what I am struggling with, in the last two matches we have turned over the ball inside the oppos 22 (the red zone) through our failure to protect the ball (i,e, understand the law).

.....It seems certain the at the very least, he urgently needs an attack coach. Somebody who understands the new breakdown laws would be a help as well: conceding exactly 20 turnovers at the breakdown in the last two matches is a sure recipe for losing.

This is what I am struggling with, in the last two matches we have turned over the ball inside the oppos 22 (the red zone) through our failure to protect the ball (i,e, understand the law).

There does seem to be a difference between the way the English refs referee the breakdown compared to others. It stood out during the early rounds of european matches as well. The French did seem to get away with not rolling away an awful lot yesterday and preventing the clear out players coming in cleanly. Compare that to Denton getting pinged and told by Wayne Barnes yesterday to "roll east to west, not back"

One thing about the breakdown is that we train with a referee (Wayne Barnes afaik) and it's obvious that the interpretation differs there from referee to referee to a significant extent. Is it possible we are actually using the one referee for guidance who will never referee us? If so Jones needs to create either get an adaptable referee or a new coach who is able to mimic the different referees and imitate their styles when refereeing. Let's also be blunt that however much responsibility Jones need to take the NH players have been poor at adapting to the referee for as long as I can remember. What made McCaw a goat wasn't simply his work at the breakdown or leadership but his ability to paint a different picture (cheat another way!) when referees cracked down on him. Some of these players need to engage the little grey cells more.

We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment.
We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals.
We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards.
If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing
abuse@sportnetwork.net